[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by beachhead

Let's just hope that the raiders stay put in oakland. From a taxpayer position, the whole stadium deal is a very bad deal, and no politician who had the best interest of their constituents would have ever supported it. Let the boondoggle go, and find a more affordable, and more favorable location for UNLV to play.

Do you stay on the strip much?

[calisoccer99]

Another news site blasting oaklands plan

NFL exec: Oakland stadium plan for Raiders 'carbon copy' of failed efforts

[calisoccer99]

NFL is even saying oaklands plan has problems

Concerns exist regarding Oakland stadium project's financing - NFL.com

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

Do you stay on the strip much?

The bonds would be General Obligation. The premise that only tourists will pay for this is at best extremely optimistic and at worst dishonest, especially when you include the $800m in road improvements that locals will absolutely cover.

[lvmensch]

Again this Las Vegas...not somewhere else. The stadium compliments and expands the strip and is well worth the effort. The object is to keep the strip out of the reach of everywhere else.

So we need the stadium. And the cost is, in the overall scheme of things, a nit. And the road improvements will come anyway. Only the timing changes.

[beachhead]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

The bonds would be General Obligation. The premise that only tourists will pay for this is at best extremely optimistic and at worst dishonest, especially when you include the $800m in road improvements that locals will absolutely cover.

Thank you for your usual, insightful answer. I would also add that it also ignores the strips descent into oblivion. As they squeeze every penny out of their guests, this terrible stadium deal just adds one more straw onto an overloaded camels back. Gambling continues to decline, room rates keep going up, resort fees add to that, food and entertainment that is no longer a bargain, pay to park, etc all reach ever deeper into the tourist wallet. None of what is available is exclusive to Las Vegas any more, and at some point, tourism is going to dip. I know prior to moving here, our trips were reduced as it became less and less of a quick, bargain get away, as there are plenty of other places to go, and I know I wasn't the only one who felt/feels that way.

It's a double whammy because about the time we'll see a more serious decline in tourism (as time reduces the boomers that mask this) the stadium will be older, and those who are here will be stuck paying for it either through higher taxes, or reduced services. It's just a bad deal, no matter what the cheerleaders say.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by beachhead

Thank you for your usual, insightful answer. I would also add that it also ignores the strips descent into oblivion. As they squeeze every penny out of their guests, this terrible stadium deal just adds one more straw onto an overloaded camels back. Gambling continues to decline, room rates keep going up, resort fees add to that, food and entertainment that is no longer a bargain, pay to park, etc all reach ever deeper into the tourist wallet. None of what is available is exclusive to Las Vegas any more, and at some point, tourism is going to dip. I know prior to moving here, our trips were reduced as it became less and less of a quick, bargain get away, as there are plenty of other places to go, and I know I wasn't the only one who felt/feels that way.

It's a double whammy because about the time we'll see a more serious decline in tourism (as time reduces the boomers that mask this) the stadium will be older, and those who are here will be stuck paying for it either through higher taxes, or reduced services. It's just a bad deal, no matter what the cheerleaders say.

Where are you getting your doom from. Tourist counts continue to grow and revenue faster. Overall Las Vegas populations continues to grown at around 2%. Aerial visitors are increasing at a rate around 5%.

The stadium will add to that growth and provide a world class facility to UNLV.

Doom for its own sake makes little sense. The strip has apparently decided that the low end mass market is not as good as the high end mass market. Why argue?

[LasVegasPlayer]

I agree that there is no reason to think doom is on the short horizon but we would be creating a massive liability if the trend changed course. Nobody can predict 20 years from now though. Another recession is certainly not out of the question. A double whammy of lower visitation and hotel rates would be tough to overcome with this massive liability. Asian visitors losing cash access is a real concern for high limit baccarat on the Strip. They are the most valuable Strip visitors.

The real issue is that the law allows the stadium to spend money on capital improvements before paying off bonds. There is also no punishment if the investors walk if it turns out to be a money pit or befores obsolete. It then becomes our problem.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

I agree that there is no reason to think doom is on the short horizon but we would be creating a massive liability if the trend changed course. Nobody can predict 20 years from now though. Another recession is certainly not out of the question. A double whammy of lower visitation and hotel rates would be tough to overcome with this massive liability. Asian visitors losing cash access is a real concern for high limit baccarat on the Strip. They are the most valuable Strip visitors.

The real issue is that the law allows the stadium to spend money on capital improvements before paying off bonds. There is also no punishment if the investors walk if it turns out to be a money pit or befores obsolete. It then becomes our problem.

And you wish to do the thing that feed lower visitation? What sort of sense does that make. What is the overall strip investment? 100 billion? And you think a few hundred million will wreck the taxpayers? The cost to carry a 700 milllion debt will bankrupt a 4.8 billion budget? One percent of the budget?

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

And you wish to do the thing that feed lower visitation? What sort of sense does that make. What is the overall strip investment? 100 billion? And you think a few hundred million will wreck the taxpayers? The cost to carry a 700 milllion debt will bankrupt a 4.8 billion budget? One percent of the budget?

I don't understand your comment. The stadium will have little or no effect on tourism. Remember that we will never have NCAAB national playoffs or a Super Bowl. We're talking maybe a bigger bowl game and the single digit percentage of fans at 8 NFL games, 10 if you think people will travel for preseason. Maybe a few more people will visit for UNLV games. We'll hardly see $75m/yr in new taxes and econ impact that trickles down from that.

The bonds aren't structured the way you describe. The entire note would come due at the end. It is interest-only until maturity. Meanwhile, the Stadium Authority isn't compelled to pay it down. That is a massive liability the investors may walk away from and stick taxpayers with and the law doesn't give any penalties to the Raiders if they bail early.